You mention Dolphin meat is a luxury in the first 20 mins of your 1AC yet:
According to local wholesaler Mizutani Ikuo, dolphin meat sells for about 2,000 yen (about US$16) a kilo, cheaper than beef or whale.(http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/2306)

And you mention that lives would not be lost but what about making an argument that lives are 'harmed' because dolphin is full of mercury and toxins?

The UN Court of Justice evidence should have been cited in your constructive.

Why would the UN acting make it worse? If you are suggesting that it would antagonize the Japanese, make that argument a little clearer.

The opposition did not present the argument of 'why not stop other animal abuses' as a counter plan, yet the proposition then tries to perm this in the last argument saying 'to make resolution against all animal abuses'...but that is not the resolution...not the plan.

Your opening speech is well structured and you clearly presented harms. However, the arguments were very limited to the empowerment of the UN. It would have been better if you had more diversity in your argument. For example, you could have expanded your argument of animal rights.

Your argument that dolphin meats are luxuries and all animal deserve respects and protection was not very good arguments. You should have mentioned why we should save dolphins first, rather than other animals.

Furthermore, you need to focus more on WHY your harm is more important than the opposition, rather than keep pointing out that the opposition didn't respond to your arguments. Also, you could have spoken with more energy in the rebuttal speech.

You clearly delivered that the UN's decision is not very democratic and other animal massacre should be taken care of before dolphins. Your example of dog meat convention in South Korea was very convincing.

However, you were not able to address why the UN should not intervene. Furthermore, you could have strengthen your argument by providing examples. For instance, 450 million chickens are slaughtered for food in the U.S. each year, but only 2,000 dolphins in Taiji, Japan. So that the judge or audience can be more convinced.

My decision is for the opposition (Sam Burns) because the proposition basically refuted herself by saying all animals deserve protection. - Ian Kim on May 1, 2014 at 01:44AM EST
Thanks for judging Jenn and thanks for a great round Jessica! - Sam Burns on April 28, 2014 at 10:37AM EST